Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers.

PURPOSE To introduce an educational intervention-specifically, a specialized training course-and perform a formative evaluation of the effect of the intervention on novice reader interpretation of computed tomography (CT) colonographic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was institutional review board approved. Ten normal and 50 abnormal cases, those of 60 patients with 93 polyps-61 polyps 6-9 mm in diameter and 32 polyps 10 mm or larger-were selected from a previously published trial. Seven novice readers underwent initial training that consisted of a 1-day course, reading assignments, a self-study computer module (with 61 limited data sets), observation of an expert interpreting three cases, and full interpretation of 10 cases with unblinding after each case. After training, the observers independently interpreted 60 cases by means of primary two-dimensional reading with unblinding after each case. For each case, the reading time and the location and maximal diameter of the polyp(s) were recorded. A t test was used to evaluate the observers' improvements, and empirical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed. RESULTS By-patient sensitivities and specificities were determined for each observer. The lowest by-patient sensitivity at the 6 mm or larger polyp threshold was 86%, with 90% specificity. Four observers had 100% by-patient sensitivity at the 10 mm or larger polyp threshold, with 82%-97% specificity. For polyps 10 mm or larger, mean sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 92%, respectively. For the last 20 cases, the average interpretation time per case was 25 minutes. The range of areas under the ROC curve across observers was low: 0.86-0.95. CONCLUSION In the described polyp-enriched cohort, novice CT colonographic data readers achieved high sensitivity and good specificity at formative evaluation of a comprehensive training program. Use of a similar comprehensive training method might reduce interreader variability in interpretation accuracy and be useful for reader certification.

[1]  J G Fletcher,et al.  Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. , 2000, Radiology.

[2]  Reto Meuli,et al.  Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography , 2002, European Radiology.

[3]  A. Hara,et al.  Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[4]  S D Wall,et al.  Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. , 2001, Radiology.

[5]  Carlo Catalano,et al.  Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. , 2002, American journal of surgery.

[6]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Stool Tagging Applied in Thin-slice Multidetector Computed Tomography Colonography , 2003, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[8]  C. Johnson,et al.  Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[9]  M. Macari,et al.  Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  F. Earnest,et al.  Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[11]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance , 2004, European Radiology.

[12]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  J. Burdick,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. , 2004, JAMA.

[14]  Perry Pickhardt,et al.  Location of Adenomas Missed by Optical Colonoscopy , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. , 2005, Radiology.

[16]  Jorge A Soto,et al.  Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  Adenomatous polyp obscured by small-caliber rectal catheter at low-dose CT colonography: a rare diagnostic pitfall. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  J. Yee,et al.  CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. , 2005, Radiology.

[19]  Judy Yee,et al.  Reader training in CT colonography: how much is enough? , 2005, Radiology.

[20]  E. Paulson,et al.  Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison , 2005, The Lancet.

[21]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[22]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers. , 2006, Radiology.

[23]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training , 2006, European Radiology.

[24]  Abraham H Dachman Advice for optimizing colonic distention and minimizing risk of perforation during CT colonography. , 2006, Radiology.

[25]  J. Stoker,et al.  Perceptive errors in CT colonography , 2007, Abdominal Imaging.

[26]  S. Park,et al.  Causes of false-negative findings at CT colonography. , 2006, Radiology.

[27]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  Standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomographic colonography. , 2007, Gastroenterology.

[28]  P. Pickhardt Screening CT colonography: how I do it. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. , 2007, Radiology.

[30]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[31]  J. Wardle,et al.  CT colonography: interpretative performance in a non-academic environment. , 2007, Clinical radiology.

[32]  H. Fenlon,et al.  Effect of Directed Training on Reader Performance for CT Colonography: Multicenter study , 2007 .

[33]  Abraham H Dachman,et al.  CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. , 2007, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[34]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. , 2007, Radiology.

[35]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. , 2007, Academic radiology.